Austin v. Long
| Decision Date | 20 February 1907 |
| Docket Number | (No. 80.) |
| Citation | 1 Ga.App. 258,57 S.E. 964 |
| Parties | AUSTIN v. LONG. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Where one party to a suit offers in evidence a letter which is proved to have been written by the opposing party, and which contains an admission against such opposing party, it is error for the court to exclude it on the objection that its delivery to the party first named has not been shown.
The court erred in directing the verdict. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 7, Bills and Notes, §§ 1862-1894.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Elberton; Proffitt, Judge.
Action by F. C. Austin against N. G. Long. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Ira C. Van Duzer and W. D. Tutt, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Samuel L. Olive, for defendant in error.
POWELL, J. F. C. Austin brought suit against Dr. Long, upon the following note:
Among other things, the defendant pleaded that the spider referred to in the note had never been furnished. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence the note, and offered in evidence the following letter:
Preliminary to the tender of the letter the plaintiff made formal proof of its execution by the defendant. Upon the tender of the letter, counsel for defendant objected to its introduction in evidence, upon the sole ground that there had been no proof that the same had been received by the plaintiff; and the court sustained this objection. Upon the plaintiff's offering no further evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant.
1. We see no reason why the very fact of the plaintiff's being in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capital City Brick Co v. Atlanta
...are concerned is of no applicability. Contracts must not be unilateral. Admissions are, in a sense, usually so. Compare Austin v. Long, 1 Ga. App. 258, 57 S. E. 964. 2. The plaintiff in error complains that the judge did not construe the correspondence, but left it to the jury to say whethe......
-
Austin v. Long
...Reversed. W. D. Tutt, for plaintiff in error. Sam L. Olive, for defendant in error. RUSSELL, J. On a former hearing of this case (1 Ga. App. 258, 57 S. E. 964) the judgment of the trial judge, overruling the motion for new trial, was reversed because a letter written by the defendant, and c......
-
Capital City Brick Co. v. Atlanta Ice & Coal Co.
...are concerned is of no applicability. Contracts must not be unilateral. Admissions are, in a sense, usually so. Compare Austin v. Long, 1 Ga.App. 258, 57 S.E. 964. 2. plaintiff in error complains that the judge did not construe the correspondence, but left it to the jury to say whether the ......
-
Corcoran v. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co.
... ... injuries received while he was engaged in storing lumber, ... "12X12, about 32 feet long," in the hold of one of ... the steamships of that company. The question involved is the ... application of the principles of the law of master and ... ...